Wejo needs to apologize to the Clean Sport Collective

wejo wrote:

That is not our position at all. Jon Gault has said he doesn' t think she knowingly doped.

I am 100% open to the possibility and so is Jon.

Just because you think her burrito story is nuts, doesn't mean she doesn't have a right to fund her defense, or that she knowingly doped.

Quick reminders:

1) She already defended herself to AIU.

2) She already appealed to CAS.

3) She defended herself to CAS.

4) She lost the appeal to CAS.

The burrito story is nuts, therefore, she knowingly doped.

And now, you argue that CSC implied Shelby shouldn't defend herself. That convicted doper just wants some money back...

And you are open to the possibility that she knowingly doped? After all this, you call that only a "possibility"?

Are you also open to the possibility that Salazar committed anti-doping rule violations? He lost his appeal to CAS pretty much at the same time, also by a unanimous decision.

Having said that: by all means, donate to that drug cheat. Show the world openly where you are standing.

totally valid wrote:

This is your bias, and it's not subtle. you believe everyone here has a responsibility to look at this from Shelby's POV. CSC is looking at it from the POV of actual clean athletes who don't get busted and blame it on burritos, and the people who like watching a sport that isn't overrun by cheaters with an excuse.

The prosecution in this case is over. She lost. CSC doesn't promote justice; it promotes clean athletes. She isn't one. She doesn't deserve any ore support or defense than she can muster on her own.

Your post overlapped with mine. I totally agree with yours, well said.

totally valid wrote:

Occam wrote:

the CSC is a joke... A real joke.

They initially claim they were using money to support testing at a number of races that couldn't afford testing. I asked them repeatedly to provide proof of this or they were committing fraud by soliciting donations for one thing and using them for salaries and funds to operation. They blocked me on twitter.

The CSC also lied about who they are associated with for year. It was started as a marketing activity...never about clean sport.

I'm shocked that aggressively berating an organization on Twitter with baseless assertions didn't work out for you.

no agressive berating. I was just asking questions. They initially said they'd give me proof they did this then blocked me.

They are frauds.

Occam wrote:

no agressive berating. I was just asking questions. They initially said they'd give me proof they did this then blocked me.

They are frauds.

They didn't claim that. The said one of the prongs would be to help races who can't afford testing, and to help validate testing on nutritional products to help clean athletes have confidence in what they're eating. And they were clear that they were suppprting third parties who perform these duties; they weren't doing any of it themselves. If you have any evidence of a race asking for help with testing and being turned down, we'd all love to hear it.

They also made it clear form the initial launch that the organization would also be involved in evangelizing clean sport, promoting athletes and brands who sign the charter, and creating speaking opportunities for athletes to spead the clean sport message.

If they blocked a conspiracy theorist who called them "frauds" for daring to build a supported organization, well, good for them.

LRC, going to bat for convicted drug cheat. Poor little girl got caught with anabolic fcking steroids in her system, can we all please think of her poor feelings.

She cheated, she got caught, she appealed, her appeal got laughed out of court. Because it was laughable.

wejo wrote:

totally valid wrote: LRCs position on Shelby since Day 1 has been "but she couldn't possibly...". It's the wrong approach if you actually care about a clean sport. As long as voices of note continue to hand convicted dopers a helping hand by treating their claims of innocence against all matters of fact, there will be always be an impetus to cheat. By defending the fundraiser, LRC is implicitly encouraging athletes to cheat, and to use the court of public opinion when they get caught.

That is not our position at all. Jon Gault has said he doesn' t think she knowingly doped.I am 100% open to the possibility and so is Jon.Just because you think her burrito story is nuts, doesn't mean she doesn't have a right to fund her defense, or that she knowingly doped.

I realize I am not adding any value to the conversation, but this response triggered the thought of burrito flavored nuts. Maybe corn nuts would be the starting point?

YawnJawn wrote:

It’s interesting that the article points out that “marginalized people” (why can’t they say Black, that’s overwhelmingly who it is) face wrongful convictions and lack of legal representation, and then don’t list a single racial justice organization to donate to. It seems silly to use that point to get at Houlihan but then not actually care about the injustices Black people face.

They knew it would be unwise to mention a specific racial group, because it would upset people like you. You found a way to call foul though, by assuming what they REALLY meant by the general term "marginalized people".

Talk about black people's disadvantages, someone like you pops out of a trash can to say "white people can have disadvantages too!!!".

Talk generally about disadvantaged people, you pop out of the trash can with this ridiculous feat of mental gymnastics: "I KNOW you're really talking about BLACK people so why didn't you even provide a link to donate to help black people???? HUH????? Checkmate SJW." This does nothing as a rhetorical strategy, it just reveals the weird demons in your mind.

Just realized corn nuts would really be enchiladas vs burritos. Seems odd to have a burrito flavored enchilada.

I reached out to Shana Burnette at CSC and she wrote this tome:

”We 100% support Shelby’s right to ask for money. We also 100% support the right of people to donate if that’s what they want to do. We don’t, however, believe that anyone should donate. She has exhausted the anti doping process. Her appeals within the anti-doping system are completely exhausted, and she is now serving the upheld ban. To support her at this point is to support a convicted doper, and we would rather see that money invested or donated in different ways.”

That's a false equivalency. You can believe in the RIGHT of an athlete to attempt to raise money for their cause, and also believe that you should not specifically donate money to Shelby Houlihan. This article is not arguing that Shelby should not be allowed to attempt to raise money or even that she's a bad person for doing so, the author is simply saying that there are better places to donate to in light of Shleby's employer and case chances. CSC is echoing that, not that Shelby does not have the right to start a gofundme. If the people at the CSC, believe she is guilty, then this makes sense, they don't want people giving money to a dirty athlete.

I just posted this without seeing the CSC's response and it's almost exactly what I said. Wejo, you (likely willfully) missed a very clear interpretation of their retweet. You were obviously looking for a fight here.

wejo wrote:

I reached out to Shana Burnette at CSC and she wrote this tome:âWe 100% support Shelbyâs right to ask for money. We also 100% support the right of people to donate if thatâs what they want to do. We donât, however, believe that anyone should donate. She has exhausted the anti doping process. Her appeals within the anti-doping system are completely exhausted, and she is now serving the upheld ban. To support her at this point is to support a convicted doper, and we would rather see that money invested or donated in different ways.â

So she confirmed the position that was obvious from the article that they retweeted, and from the episode of their podcast that they did on the case. She also states the fact that Houlihan is a convicted doper...

You misrepresented this position on the LRC pod and attributed a different motive, specifically that the CSC would deny Houlihan her right to an appeal or the right to raise funds for that. I don't know why you can't just admit you either didn't read the original article or that misinterpreted their position. Either way, you were wrong and no amount of doubling-down or trying to shift the debate will change that.

Once more: nobody wants to deny Houlihan her rights to due process. Just find me a single example of anyone saying she shouldn't have the right to appeal.

+1

Great comment by Wejo!

wejo wrote:

I reached out to Shana Burnette at CSC and she wrote this tome:âWe 100% support Shelbyâs right to ask for money. We also 100% support the right of people to donate if thatâs what they want to do. We donât, however, believe that anyone should donate. She has exhausted the anti doping process. Her appeals within the anti-doping system are completely exhausted, and she is now serving the upheld ban. To support her at this point is to support a convicted doper, and we would rather see that money invested or donated in different ways.â

Well said, Shana. Clean Sport does not like banned drug cheats!

casual obsever wrote:

Well said, Shana. Clean Sport does not like banned drug cheats!

unlike lrc

casual obsever wrote:

wejo wrote:

I reached out to Shana Burnette at CSC and she wrote this tome:âWe 100% support Shelbyâs right to ask for money. We also 100% support the right of people to donate if thatâs what they want to do. We donât, however, believe that anyone should donate. She has exhausted the anti doping process. Her appeals within the anti-doping system are completely exhausted, and she is now serving the upheld ban. To support her at this point is to support a convicted doper, and we would rather see that money invested or donated in different ways.â

Well said, Shana. Clean Sport does not like banned drug cheats!

But you're a determined, obsessive troll, so your opinions should not be taken seriously.

I'm confused. Shelby defended herself to the AIU and lost and as is her right she appealed to CAS and lost. No one at CSC or that article is saying that Shelby can't start a gofundme and ask for donations and no one is saying that Shelby can't try to defend herself again to the Swiss Tribunal with the solicited donations. The article does ask some important questions. Why isn't Nike or BTC helping Shelby with her legal fees? Could it be they know something the rest of us don't and don't want to get caught supporting someone they know doped? Similar to the Packers knowing Aaron Rogers was not vaccinated and then getting caught not following the NFL-NFLPA COVID protocols. I'm surprised, based on the anti-doping stance of Letsrun, that you're actually defending a convicted doper to continue down a path of soliciting money to defend herself when she has done just that and lost.

I think it's trolling to generate hits. Otherwise, even though we are talking about the brojos, there is no logical explanation for weldon's (we're for free speech when it comes to covid misinformation or overt racism) take on this.

Yes there is a logical explanation. You just don't want to hear it.